From owner-freebsd-ports Sun Dec 7 02:21:05 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id CAA02225 for ports-outgoing; Sun, 7 Dec 1997 02:21:05 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-ports) Received: from haldjas.folklore.ee (Haldjas.folklore.ee [193.40.6.121]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id CAA02205; Sun, 7 Dec 1997 02:21:00 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from narvi@Haldjas.folklore.ee) Received: from haldjas.folklore.ee (haldjas.folklore.ee [172.17.2.1] (may be forged)) by haldjas.folklore.ee (8.8.7/8.8.4) with SMTP id MAA23773; Sun, 7 Dec 1997 12:20:28 +0200 (EET) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 12:20:27 +0200 (EET) From: Narvi To: Greg Lehey cc: Terry Lambert , ports@FreeBSD.ORG, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: 3.0 -release ? In-Reply-To: <19971207165932.28970@lemis.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Sun, 7 Dec 1997, Greg Lehey wrote: > On Fri, Dec 05, 1997 at 08:04:13PM +0000, Terry Lambert wrote: > >> The second thing I think we need to consider is that in the longer > >> term, I can easily see a day where the ports and packages collection > >> have grown to the point where decoupling them from the primary FreeBSD > >> releases becomes essential in order that the "base system" remain > >> reasonably priced. This would also allow the ports collection to move > >> at its own release schedule, perhaps doing only 2 - 3 releases a year > >> and published in a format closer to Rich Morin's well known Prime Time > >> Freeware for UNIX CDs (http://www.ptf.com/ptf/products/UNIX). They > >> come with a nifty printed book containing alphabetized short > >> descriptions so you can look something up quickly before wasting your > >> time mounting the wrong CD, and I think the ports & packages > >> collection should do exactly the same thing. > > > > I like this. I think that there should be coordination with the > > OpenBSD and NetBSD folks to make sure they are usable "out of the box" > > for them as well. It could become simply "The BSD ports > > collection". > > Great idea! Yes, I've read the multitude of messages that have come > in so far. But you've missed one point: why don't we merge FreeBSD, > NetBSD and OpenBSD? Maybe BSD/OS as well? After all, most people > don't understand why there are so many BSDs anyway. > > What, you say, they don't want to cooperate? Oh. So why should they > want to cooperate on the question of the Ports Collection? > Well, I see several reasons for it (and also differences in the issues) : a) Different platforms - if we know port X works on the other BSDs on platforms A, B & C, we can be fairly sure that when the FreeBSD port happens to that platform, we have a ports collection that works there for sure. b) Having a larger amount of people who use the ports (and so also test them) is only beneficial as the probability of getting rid of bugs increases. It also increases the amount of potencial people donating their time towards both porting and maintaining ports. c) We don't need a grand cooperation like in the case of merging two operating systems. Everyone can keep their utilities (tar, md5, whatever) in the place they like. Everyone can keep their defaults as they like. The ports collection is not about the base OS-s but the things running atop of them. > Sure, the Ports Collection would be easier. It's less coupled with > the kernel. But does anybody out there really see all four (three?) > teams getting together and coordinating the mess? > No. But see above. > Greg > Sander There is no love, no good, no happiness and no future - all these are just illusions.